Jharkhand High Court
Md. Mainul Khan Son Of Late Md. ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3791 of 2015
Md. Mainul Khan son of late Md. Jamaluddin Khan, Resident of
Village & P.O. Srikund, P.S. Kotal Pokhar, District Sahebganj
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
3. Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand, Project
Building, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
4. District Education Officer, Sahebganj, P.O. and P.S. Sahebganj,
District-Sahebganj
5. Head Master, Millat High School Srikund, P.O. Srikund, P.S.
Barharwa, District Sahebganj
6. Accountant General, Jharkhand, Doranda, P.O. and P.S. Doranda,
District-Ranchi ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bhanu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Asadul Haque, Advocate
Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate
For the resp. No. 6 : Mr. Shivam Singh, Advocate
---
13/11.07.2022 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his
argument has submitted that the impugned order dated 09.12.2006 has
been challenged by the petitioner, being the son of the deceased
employee of Minority School, by filing the writ petition in the year
2015 as the right of the petitioner and his family members has been
affected by virtue of the impugned order. If the impugned order is
allowed to stand, the petitioner and his family members will remain
deprived of the post death/ pensionary benefits.
3. The learned counsel submits that even if there was dispute with
regard to date of birth, the father of the petitioner having served the
institution for 38 years was still entitled for certain benefits for the
service rendered by him, but unfortunately he expired in the year
2008. Thereafter no steps were taken by the family members to
challenge the order dated 09.12.2006 and the writ petition has been
filed only in the year 2015. The learned counsel has relied upon the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak versus Bhavnagar Municipal
Corporation decided on 18th of May, 2022 and has referred to para,
9,10, and 11 of the said judgment. He has also relied upon the
judgment passed in Civil appeal No. 4100 of 2022 decided on 20th of
May, 2022 in the case of Shri M.L. Patil (Dead) through LRs
versus The State of Goa and Anr. to submit that the right to pension
is a continuing right. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also
submitted that the impugned order has been passed without any show
cause and without any departmental proceeding initiated against the
father of the petitioner. Further , in the impugned order, no definite
date has been mentioned regarding the date of birth and it is only
alleged that the petitioner had made certain interpolation in connection
with date of birth.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on
the other hand has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground
of delay and laches and has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 para 16. So far
as the merits of the case is concerned, the learned counsel does not
dispute that no departmental proceeding as such was initiated against
the father of the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order.
5. Arguments concluded.
6. Post this case for judgment on 05.09.2022.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Binit
